Mike Bloomberg’s plan for Black America is called the “Greenwood Initiative.”
Do y’all think he knows how that ended up?
Or… is that what he wants to happen??
— michaelharriot (@michaelharriot) February 14, 2020
(History of the Greenwood District Tulsa Race Massacre.)
Read this to help you understand why Bloomberg may do really well w black voters, And because it’s beautifully written https://t.co/4bEl2k2L3j
— Dana Houle (@DanaHoule) February 13, 2020
… [J]ust when you thought it was over, you’re forced to choose between an unabashed white supremacist and a billionaire fugitive slave catcher who submitted a sealed bid for the presidency of the United States.
First, you try to get free.
When all else fails, you vote for Michael Bloomberg…
Michael Bloomberg is a white quadrillionaire with infinitely deep pockets and a record of getting shit done. Even if the “shit” he got done came at the expense of our sons and daughters, defeating Donald Trump is the most important factor in a lot of people’s decisions on who they will vote for. Michael Bloomberg’s rise isn’t a condemnation of the other candidates as much as it is an example that black people know white people better than anything else in the universe.
One of the biggest factors in a large number of black people’s primary voting criterion is who they think white people will vote for when the curtain closes behind them in the voting booth. We know Bernie has better policy plans. We know Elizabeth Warren is a better communicator. We have seen Buttigieg’s Douglass plan.
But we also know white people.
Donald Trump is proof of what they will do.
For many black people, the prospect of an unchecked, second-term white supremacist outweighs the choice between Medicare for All and a public option. It’s heavier than student loan forgiveness or foreign policy. It’s bigger than all of the economic proposals and tax plans combined. It’s not even that people don’t think the other Democratic candidates can defeat Donald Trump. We just don’t know if they can defeat the overwhelming self-interests of white people.
No, Michael Bloomberg isn’t a great candidate, but when it comes to someone who can beat Trump, in many ways, he is the same kind of white man. And, while fighting fire with fire seems like a stupid idea, people are sometimes willing to do anything when their house is on fire. Maybe his campaign slogan should be: “I mean…It’s worth a shot.”
He might only be the lesser of two evils but, for a lot of people—especially black people—Donald Trump might be the greatest evil imaginable. Given that Bloomberg actually supported a system of institutional racism, I think it’s insane that any black person would vote for him. But I also know that white supremacy can make me crazy. Oppression, above all things, is a devourer of logic and a manufacturer of desperation…
I dislike Bloomberg very much, but I have a tremendous about of respect for Rep. McBath, and I trust her judgement implicitly. https://t.co/tZb2jrpTyP
— An Antic Disposition ?? (@pavanvan) February 12, 2020
Yep. I loathe Bloomberg (but, AI robot voice: will support him if he's the nominee) but the idea that she got on board with him because he gave to her campaign and not because he's put his money where his mouth is on gun control–her top issue–is stupid and offensive. https://t.co/fDDqpHG4lm
— Elizabeth Spiers (@espiers) February 13, 2020
Fair Economist
If Bloomberg wins the Presidency, we will have to concentrate on process improvements like voting rights because we certainly won’t get any useful economic reforms past him. I dread the 45-yo he’ll appoint to replace Notorious RBG.
Still much better than Trump.
Baud
At least we can take solace in the fact that the she-demon isn’t president.
schrodingers_cat
Why is Bloomberg being taken seriously?
Gin & Tonic
@Baud: I’m nevertheless concerned about Bloomberg’s commitment to proper e-mail security. One can’t be too careful.
TaMara (HFG)
My ballot is sitting on my table. I am going to wait until closer to the actual election day (dropoff is literally two blocks from my house). I am leaning heavily to Warren. She freakin’ has a plan for everything and I suspect, as she stays under the radar (thanks MSM, fuckers) and Bloomberg continues to unhinge the orange one (really are there any hinges left), and others will have revelations come out making them more unpalatable (though, y’all know I’ll vote for the D no matter what) she will become the most viable candidate.
If the worst they can say about her is Pocahantas, that will get weak fast.
Anyway, my thoughts for what they are worth.
PeakVT
FTFNYT will get behind the billionaire moderate New York Republican over the millionaire fascist New York Republican, so we have that to look forward to as well…
It’s 5 PM somewhere in the world, right? I’m off to the store to find ingredients and beer.
NotMax
Seeing the word logic in a politics headline is like seeing the word strychnine on a restaurant menu.
Does not compute.
Timurid
National elections are how white people conduct their performance reviews of the rest of us.
Betty Cracker
McBath became an activist and then a politician because her son was shot and killed by a racist. Fred Guttenberg, who was recently kicked out of Trump’s SOTU speech, became an activist when his daughter Jaime was killed two years ago today (only two years — seems like five at least!) at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School. I don’t think Guttenberg has endorsed anyone, but he’s favorably disposed toward Bloomberg because of his work on gun control, so he might.
I’ve got TONS of empathy and respect for both these grieving parents, and I understand completely why Bloomberg’s work on guns would be the thing that matters most to them. If I were in their shoes, god forbid, I’d feel the same way. But that doesn’t mean they’re right about Bloomberg. We (Democrats) can do better.
VFX Lurker
Same here. I have until March 3rd to return my California ballot. I may wait until February 29th to see how well Warren does in Nevada and South Carolina.
I appreciate Warren, but I will vote for Biden if he wins those states.
Humdog
It is frustrating that Warren has been viewed by several POC in our commentariat as too newly Democratic to be trusted to maintain Democratic priorities if elected prez, but Bloomberg is contemplatable.
But if you look at it as Harriet does, POC want someone they are most confident can beat Shitstain, well , it is disappointment but more understandable.
I keep thinking how the business class in early Hitler’s Germany sided with him to douse economic reforms. Today we are taking on the racists head on, misogynists head on if we nominate a woman, AND Warren effectively taking on both socially liberal and conservative money may be a speed bump too many. Funny how the money folks aren’t as worried about Sanders. Big sigh. Triage sucks as a political play but it is necessary given the stakes.
Betty Cracker
@schrodingers_cat: Because he’s making a credible bid to buy the nomination. In a poll issued today, he’s ahead of every Democrat running in Florida at the moment, for example. he’s catching up to Biden in SC. I’m hoping the Bloomberg boomlet is short-lived, but yeah, it’s worth taking seriously.
Formerly disgruntled in Oregon
Democrats would be huge hypocrites to nominate someone with Mike Bloomberg’s (lack of) character. As Biden likes to say, “character is on the ballot”.
Bloomberg has a history of behaving horrendously with the women in his employ. He has a recent history of racist statements and positions. He is engaged in a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party, much like Trump’s acquisition of the Republican Party.
If it comes down to Bernie vs Bloomberg (shudder), then I’m on team Bernie.
MomSense
I think Bloomberg will be great on gun control and climate change. Our children will be grateful if we finally get our act together on those two issues.
If we get anything else accomplished it will only be if we have a majority in the house and senate (we would have to end the filibuster). The big ?? for me is the judiciary. What would be his criteria for SCOTUS nominees? We would need assurances on that.
Jamie
@schrodingers_cat: My $.02? Because the other Democrats are busy wrangling about the details of impossible policy proposals with each other, and Bloomberg gives the appearance of focusing on the only thing that is actually important to our democracy at the moment: beating Donald Trump like a rented mule.
The idea of a billionaire buying the race is gross as hell, and Bloomberg has a ton of other problems–but as somebody who’s been groaning about bullshit M4A debates and whatnot while the rule of law is burning down around us, I totally get the appeal.
Seanly
Ugh… triangulation & 13th-dimensional chess will be the death of us. My brother is convinced that Trump is going to win 435-0 no matter who the Democratic candidate is. I’m gonna vote for the candidate I like the most in my primary and then vote for the D in November even if it isn’t the person I voted for in the primary.
Baud
@Humdog:
It’s the predominantly white electorates of Iowa and NH that hurt Warren’s chances.
Mike in NC
I see where both Hugh Hewitt and Marc Thiessen — those resident wingnut pundits at the Washington Post — have recently written favorably about the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. They obviously recognize him as an elderly out-of-touch crank in poor health and the easiest person for Trump to steamroll in November. Many of us would be happy to hold our noses and vote for Bloomberg given the sickening alternative.
MisterForkbeard
@schrodingers_cat: Because he’s polling well, and because he’s corporate friendly enough that the media likes him. He also has obscene amounts of money.
But you knew all that already, and apparently I just like answering rhetorical questions :(
Cermet
While I prefer Warren, I’d vote for anyone against the orange F$rt cloud; even the Burn(ie).
@Jamie: Agree; the details don’t matter to most voters just the overall picture (what ever the hell that is – but it is what it is.)
MisterForkbeard
@TaMara (HFG): Same. I vote in Super Tuesday and will almost certainly vote for Warren, but I’m holding my ballot until a day or two before the election.
sdhays
I find this a bit silly. Yes, you know white people, but that still doesn’t explain why you think they’ll like an old Jewish billionaire with some of the same issues that Trump has. You’re making quite a assumption that white people won’t conclude that there’s no point in voting since they’re basically the same. (I’m team broken glass, but Bloomberg would be a really depressing nominee.
ETA: This was part of the argument for black voters supporting Biden, and I totally respect that and have even started to come to it myself. But Bloomberg….
JPL
@Betty Cracker: I didn’t think he was on the ballot in SC.
A Ghost To Most
Mail-in ballots have arrived. I’m still thinking Klobuchar, wife wants Warren, but is wavering, and one son is reconsidering St. Bernard. So, progress.
Humdog
@Baud: I think many things have come together to hurt Warren. My point was that until I saw Harriot’s piece, I was flabbergasted that Bloomberg could pick up POC support in SC after hearing reasons against Warren in the comments here.
schrodingers_cat
@Jamie: Agreed the focus on M4A in the Dem debates has been farcical. Someone Democrat needs to rhetorically beat that leap year Democrat for leading the Democratic field into this ritual harakiri in the next debate. That person will have my vote. Amy K bring your mean with the broad grin.
sdhays
@MomSense: I don’t believe he has the ability to actually excite, galvanize, expand, and lead the Democratic coalition to do anything. I think the best we can hope for, if he’s the nominee, is him blocking Dump. People give Biden a hard time, with good reason, for being conciliatory towards Republicans, but Bloomberg gets a pass for helping prop up the actual destructive Republican Senate majority?
CaseyL
The point of the article in The Root is that POC realize their very lives are disposable to Whites, whether the reason is tax cuts or M4A. Whites have proven that, over and over.
As a Jewish person, who’s been watching the not so slow creep of growing antisemitism, I empathize with that viewpoint.
Bloomberg tempts precisely because he promises to focus on the main, really the only, point: destroy Trump and his nest of malignant hangers-on.
The other candidates are still arguing over policy minutiae.
Betty Cracker
@JPL: I meant in the polls. Not sure if he’s on the ballot anywhere until Super Tues.
schrodingers_cat
I was told that the Ds could not have stopped BS running as a D even if they wanted to, is that right?
surfk9
@TaMara (HFG): Like you, my CA ballot is sitting on my desk. I am a Warren supporter but want to see how NV and SC shake out.
Martin
The simple truth here is that if you can’t beat Bloomberg with his billions then you can’t beat Trump with his Citizen United billions and a DOJ that will investigate your family, an IRS that will turn over your kids tax returns to Lindsay Graham, and a State Department that will line up electoral favors from foreign governments.
That’s why you’re seeing people turn to him.
I agree with the process improvements, which is why a Dem Senate is so key. Congressional Dems aren’t going to bend the knee like Congressional Republicans have. Have faith in them.
We’ll get some useful economic reforms. Maybe not the flavor that we would have otherwise. I think we’ll get a fairly conventional tax reform with sizable increases for high earners. It won’t be a wealth tax. Bloomberg wants to balance the budget, and he’s always focused more on revenue then spending cuts.
The real opportunity is major changes in federal policy and subsidies related to climate change. I would expect to see petroleum subsidies start to be torn down and protection for that industry pulled away. Breaking some of the structural alliances and major drivers of foreign and federal policy is nothing to sneeze at.
sdhays
@CaseyL: He doesn’t like Dump. But he’s been fine with his “hangers on” until very, very recently.
Barbara
There are many white people who feel the same way. I am one of them, although I am still not inclined to vote for Bloomberg in the primary, not at this point. And yes, those who think that supporting M4A is more important than defeating Trump are living in a world where they are very evidently not in the direct line of Trump’s fire. I actually don’t consider myself to be in the direct line of fire, but I consider it my duty to consider the interests of those who are.
joel hanes
@TaMara (HFG):
that will get weak fast.
It was weak and lame the first time it was uttered.
Nevertheless, she persisted.
joel hanes
@NotMax:
strychnine
anthrax and tire rims
sdhays
@TaMara (HFG): I’m just glad that we Democrats don’t have the crazy winner-take-all rules that the Republicans had that gave them Dump. Much, much less terrifying (at this stage, at least).
schrodingers_cat
@Humdog: She should not have hugged BS so tight. That she could not see him for what he was despite his actions in 2016 is troubling.
She joined him in the rigged primary chorus too in 2016. And now his supporters are tweeting snakes at her.
Belafon
Because his money, and his take no prisoners stance against Trump, is making people seriously consider him. The other candidates are splitting hairs over health care. He’s going after Trump.
kindness
The whole Bloomberg thing is absurd. He isn’t going to be the nominee. He’s just another billionaire that got scared shitless when he thought Bernie might win.
Bloomberg running had nothing to do with him saving the Democratic Party. It had to do with him saving his bank account. He deserves all the shit that is coming out about him.
joel hanes
@Jamie:
Democrats are busy wrangling about the details of impossible policy proposals with each other
The utter malpractice of the media, and particularly the horrible “debate moderators”, has matted and framed this narrative, and has hung it in the foyer.
schrodingers_cat
We have a town Democratic caucus to choose delegates for the state convention tomorrow. I have no idea what to expect.
Jinchi
@VFX Lurker: I sent my ballot in a day after I got it. No matter how the election plays out I won’t regret having picked Warren and I didn’t want to be second guessing myself based on the early primaries. I don’t think we’ll know the true leaders until after Super Tuesday in any case.
sherparick
@schrodingers_cat: The $2 billion dollars he can throw into the campaign without blinking an eye. Bloomberg, unlike Steyer, is actually an experienced politician and operator. He is still an oligarch and an authoritarian, but at least because of has played the political game for 20 years is somewhat use to being told “no” and build alliances.
I live among white people in “Confederate” Virginia and no shit, these people would bring back slavery in a New York minute. In this vale of tears, we will often face the choice of the lesser of two evils. Bloomberg is certainly the lesser evil if he wins the nomination. I still hope for Warren, will vote for Sanders, and prefer Klobuchar as the my Centrist candidate. But if Bloomberg wins, I will vote for him while holding my nose.
Elizabelle
@kindness: I wonder if Bloomberg was more concerned about Bernie (socialist!) or Elizabeth (actually has Wall Street’s number and can communicate well with voters).
MisterForkbeard
@kindness: I think Bloomberg may (ironically) be what makes Bernie the nominee on Super Tuesday.
There’s about 60% of the vote as moderate. If he sucks up 20% of that (or even 15%) then none of the other moderate candidates have much of a chance to clear Bernie’s probable 30% or so.
eclare
I am leaning toward Bloomberg. I want someone who brings a Howitzer to a gun fight. And lots of cash. I cannot mentally take another confirmation like Boof’s.
I’m with Nancy, “Just win, baby.”
Paraphrased from my comment below.
joel hanes
@kindness:
got scared shitless when he thought Bernie might win.
IMHO, Sen. Sanders is only a rhetorical threat to Bloomberg’s billions. Bloomberg got scared when he thought that Senator Professor Warren might win, because she has demonstrated the capacity to craft effective legislation and build a coalition that gets it passed.
cmorenc
@Fair Economist:
Guarantee you’ll like who gets appointed to RBG’s seat if Bloomberg gets to nominate that person than if Trump gets to nominate that person.
Here’s another potential nightmare to add to your closet. It’s mid-November 2020, and we have a Democratic president-elect, and we’ve won a majority in the incoming Senate. But RBG unexpectedly dies on November 12th. Ya think McConnell and Trump will defer to the election results and wait to let the incoming President choose the nominee? Nope – anything McConnell or Trump previously said about election years and SCOTUS nominations will suddenly be inoperative. They will have a relatively clean (in terms of personal scandal potential) hard-right nominee quickly teed up and they’ll steamroll a rush job through, and the rump R-majority will go right along with lubricating the process to a quick conclusion before the Senate adjourns.
sdhays
@joel hanes: I haven’t followed closely all the fallout from Iowa Caucus debacle, but the one thing that I see that the DNC did have absolutely control over was their debates, and they blew it. They let the networks decide how they would conduct the debates and who would be asking the questions, and that was malpractice.
The networks are desperate for content, and Democrats could host their own debates on Youtube if they don’t want to play ball. They don’t need the same tired morons asking the same tired questions trying to gin up a fight, but they allowed it to happen because they won’t kick the media the way Republicans will. And that’s why they don’t get taken seriously.
joel hanes
@Jinchi:
didn’t want to be second guessing myself based on the early primaries
Thank you.
The behavior you avoided is precisely why Iowa and New Hampshire are so bad for our nation.
Served
@schrodingers_cat: You say this in every thread, but Warren has hugged every candidate tightly at some point, except for Bloomberg who she is vocally dressing down regularly now.
JPL
I would support Bloomberg over Bernie because of the House and Senate ballots. If he can buy the election, he can buy the other races also.
joel hanes
@sdhays:
Democrats could host their own debates on Youtube
I advocate giving the debates back to The League of Women Voters, which did a stellar job.
guachi
So Bloomberg is doing better among black voters than white voters in the Democratic primary but white people are to blame if he’s our nominee. Econ/YouGov poll: Bloomberg 10% with white voters, 17% with black voters.
Nope. Not buying it.
Jinchi
Every candidate is going hard after Trump. They’re also talking about life after Trump. Bloomberg is literally offering nothing. I don’t know why that’s a selling point.
kindness
I personally hope Senator Warren wins. I’m voting for her and have donated to her.
I don’t hate Bernie I just think his schtick sucks. Old man yelling at clouds thing. I like some of the flavoring directions Bernie goes but his inability to find a middle way will sink him. That and his believing that he can get Americans to man the barricades 24/7 in a Bernie Presidency to get his stuff passed. He doesn’t know Americans very well, now does he? We have jobs and families. Our time is precious and I vote for people to do the job. I don’t want to do it for 4/8 years. Now BernieBros I find I frequently loathe. Still don’t hate them. Just think they are proud to be the assholes the continually tell us they are. Not a good look imho.
Belafon
@sdhays:
Because, if we strip away the hair-splitting over health care, the big reason Democrats are pumped up is the guy in the Whtie House. And right now, Bloomberg’s attacking Trump with the loudest voice.
One of the candidates on stage really needs to go “We all really agree that something needs to be done about health care, but we have different ideas on how to get there. But we all know that Trump is destroying this country and needs to be removed from office.” Over and over.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Jamie: Agreed, this is the problem…the house is in fire and the Democratic field(with a healthy assist from the media) want to talk about redecorating the kitchen. While Bloomberg is an extremely flawed candidate from a Democratic perspective, he seems to see the flames licking at our feet.
Martin
@CaseyL: I get black voters opposition to Bloomberg due to stop and frisk. 100%.
But American racism is much broader than that with specific alliances that give it strength. A pro-immigration Jewish president breaks that. It puts Bloomberg squarely as a target for Trump’s base. It forces Bloomberg into alliance with black voters. He cannot win without them, and he seems pragmatic enough to not burn that bridge.
But the foundation of Trumps support isn’t white people, it’s white protestants. The only disruption to that support in the nations history was JFK – which was instrumental to the civil rights gains in the 60s.
I don’t expect Bloomberg to be a liberal savior, but I do expect him to shake up the long-established national institutions enough that we get some surprising victories. I also don’t see Bloomberg as a hypocrite. I think he’s plain spoken. He says things that are unpopular and that I disagree with, but I also know where he stands. I am much less trustful of the vast majority of Christians who seem to have no problem straight up lying to my face and who have dominated US politics my entire life.
eclare
@JPL: Plus I think candidates like Kelley would have an easier time on the ticket if Bernie is not at the top.
Served
I’m curious how much of Bloomberg’s appeal is in having “our Trump” in office. Anecdotally, the people who were the most “I don’t want to have to worry about what the President is doing every day” have latched on to him more quickly and more forcefully than they did to Biden.
The lure of autocracy is always there, and after four years under a demented ruler, four years under a benevolent one is tempting to an exhausted and under siege population. Of course, there’s a pretty big problem underlying in the later here, but it is buried under the urgency of the now.
Belafon
@Jinchi: Because Bloomberg commercials are going after Trump. Bloomberg’s speeches are going after Trump. The other candidates are tied to their health care proposals.
I know we go after the media about framing, but Bloomberg and his money are framing him as the candidate willing to take on Trump. And if you’re scared of what’s coming from a second term Trump, like truly scared the way African Americans are, it’s very appealing.
Belafon
@Martin: And I would bet that, as smart as Bloomberg is, he’ll try to get Abrams as his VP. He’s already shown he’s willing to listen to her, unlike Biden, who kind of used her name as a throw-away comment.
Served
If we get through the primary and no one has reached the delegate threshold, and Bernie has the most delegates, but the moderates combined have many more, what happens? He wins with a slim plurality? His 30% outweighs the 70% of others? That’s a messy situation that only feeds into the conspiracy-laced divisions, but I can’t see how it’s not the only other outcome aside from Bernie crossing the goal line.
Jinchi
Victories on what? Bloomberg isn’t in this to shake up the establishment. The establishment is designed around wealth and privilege . He’s in it to stop Warren or Sanders from being in a position to change that.
Belafon
Here’s another way to put it:
Redshift
@schrodingers_cat:
That is right. Unlike in countries with parliamentary systems, there isn’t actually any “official member of the Democratic Party” status. You could have a rule that Bernie can’t run as a Dem unless he identifies as a Dem in the Senate, but what about people who aren’t elected officials? About the only restriction I’ve seen for running in Democratic primaries is candidates must pledge not to support anyone running against the Democratic nominee. (A county board member in a neighboring county actually got kicked out of the party for endorsing a Republican in an election.)
Jamie
@schrodingers_cat: Hell yes. Klobuchar is my preferred candidate.
eclare
Anecdata I know, a friend of mine of Indian descent in Plano decided that he was for Bloomberg weeks ago.
schrodingers_cat
@Served: When I said she hugged, I did not mean it literally.
Kay
@Served:
I’m curious why anyone would believe Bloomberg will be “our” anything. At least Trump is theirs. They got their judges. We’re not going to get shit.
I mean, if we’re going to sell it lets at least get something in return.
germy
Hero:
sdhays
@Belafon: I just wish he would have started around this time last year so people had time to wear their support of Bloomberg for a few months to see if it was really what they wanted rather than swooping in at the last minute with a “savior” pitch.
Served
@schrodingers_cat: I did not either.
She has praised and adopted other candidates’ policies and performances from day one. Bernie has not been some outlier.
schrodingers_cat
@eclare: If he was a Modi bhakt (devotee) he would have been for the Orange Glory. Stupid is universal.
Jinchi
@Belafon: Everyone gets that. We just don’t think Bloomberg is our only hope or even the strongest bet on defeating the maniac.
hueyplong
Settling is what I’ll do once a nominee is selected. Picking my favorite from the now Kamala-less field is what I’ll do on Super Tuesday.
And it won’t be Bloomberg that day.
Served
@Kay: He’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing and in all circumstances, especially when it comes to SCOTUS, he would leap to protect himself and his class first and foremost.
schrodingers_cat
@Served: I meant the embrace of M4A and the echoing of rigged primary rhetoric of 2016.
Belafon
I’m not sold on him, but I will also say to all of the minorities that I will vote for the non-Trump candidate whoever it is.
eclare
@schrodingers_cat: His family is somewhere in very Southern India, and he saw the danger in 2016. Doesn’t talk much about politics in India.
Martin
@kindness: I hate to be the one to break this to you – but Bloombergs bank account is unassailable. Elizabeth Warren with a blank check couldn’t put a dent in it.
And Bloomberg has committed to continuing his $1B funding in the service of Warren or Bernie if they happen to be the nominee, so your thesis makes no sense if that happens.
I think Bloomberg does believe in the economic system that earned him his billions is an overall good system, and neither Bernie nor Liz present a threat to that system, because even a Democratic Congress will only give them a tiny bit of rope to do that – Obama couldn’t even get a public option with 12 more Dem senators. But Trump presents a huge threat to that system. Corruption will destroy that system, and corruption does present a threat to Bloombergs wealth.
Liz and Bernie are proposing marginal changes that sound like radical changes. In terms of money making, Bloomberg doesn’t care if the health care economy is nationalized – he’ll just short the insurers and invest in the parts of the economy that will benefit. He does care if there’s a recession though. He does care if global trade breaks down. He does care if the President can steer the national economy to benefit him personally, because that breaks way more shit than Bernie or Liz could ever change.
Josie
@MomSense:
He’s also good on voting rights and has contributed heavily to Stacy Abrams’ organization. That’s the big three for me – climate, guns and voting rights. Everything else can wait until we get back on an even keel.
ETA: I just sent Klobuchar some money, but I don’t hold much hope for her.
Served
@schrodingers_cat: The “rigging” response in one interview comment that she later retracted and 99% of people don’t remember.
M4A is a liberal wing platform plank now. You can love it or hate it, but it’s not just a “Bernie” thing anymore and hasn’t been since 2016.
Betty Cracker
@guachi: I don’t think we even know if that premise is true, i.e., that it’s black Democrats who are migrating to Bloomberg at higher rates than whites. The polling in SC suggested it because a majority of Democrats in that state are black. But in the Florida poll I linked above, Hispanic and white Democrats favor Bloomberg more than black voters do, if I’m reading the cross-tabs correctly.
We need to know more before settling on a race-based narrative to explain the Bloomberg phenomenon, IMO. I think it’s as simple as ALL Democrats are scared shitless, and some think only an oligarch with endless piles of cash can ensure Trump’s defeat. Seems like a theory that has cross-racial appeal to me.
Kay
@Served:
It’s not even that. He’s a wolf in wolf’s clothing. We’ve all just decided to pretend a wolf is really a sheep. Wolves and sheep both have four legs, after all.
Ksmiami
@I just went to a Dallas Bloomberg event and I gotta say he’s hired a lot of high level women of color to work on the campaign as well and I feel good backing someone who will ruthlessly take Trump and minions down.
MazeDancer
@schrodingers_cat:
Bernie is a lying grifter and that she couldn’t see that speaks poorly for her.
That she nice girled Bernie for way too long made her look weak.
And now Bernie is just shrugging off M4A simply proves what a lying grifter he is. And she ought to, nicely, slit his throat. Or at least hit him on guns.
And if Bloomberg takes out Bernie asking about his porn writing, including claiming lack of orgasms causes cancer, how women love rape, plus his NRA support, and honeymoon in Moscow all of which are the only things Trump will talk about if, shudder, Bernie steals the nom with his 28% support, I will most certainly support Bloomberg all the way.
rp
I think folks are underselling his position on global warming. That to me is by far the most important issue facing the country, and Bloomberg has made it focal point of his campaign. You can argue that his past actions don’t match his rhetoric, but I don’t really care if he gets the country talking about climate change.
Humdog
@guachi: When you look at a large group of white people, you can assume that just over half the white women and two out of three white men voted for Shitstain. If POC get behind a nominee they do not prefer in order to assure that they don’t suffer further abuse with a second term, it is down to their lack of faith in white people to do the right thing. Our color people are the problem here.
Dorothy A. Winsor
Fair Economist
I too was planning to vote for Warren here in Cali but am waiting for Nev/SC/ more polling. If it looks like Klobuchar has a better chance of clearing 15% I’ll vote for her. Otherwise I’ll just vote Warren to indicate preference.
schrodingers_cat
@Served: M4A was a purity test constructed by BS which no one could pass but him and it tanked both KH and EW.
Baud
@Dorothy A. Winsor:
Good.
Jeffro
@Mike in NC: of COURSE they love them some Bernie…I wonder how they feel about AOC since they are 100% in alignment, policy-wise? (j/k, I already know ;)
TCNJs are so predictable.
Another Scott
RollCall:
ex-Mayor Mike is a Nope from me.
SP Warren has my vote.
Cheers,
Scott.
Emma from FL
@kindness: No billionaires are scared of Bernie. They’re terrified of Warren because she spells out what they’re doing and proposing actual definite changes. Bernie’s still babbling about popular pressure. Bloomberg hates, hates, hates Trump. And also, because he’s not stupid, the knows Trump’s hires are all under-performers. He won’t tie himself to them.
MazeDancer
@Belafon:
The way every woman of every race is afraid as well.
The way every person of every race that isn’t white is as well.
The way every person who loves the Constitution and Democracy is as well.
I am in abject terror, daily. Everyone I know is.
The thing I like best about Bloomberg is the media can’t box him in. He will just go over their heads. Meme and advertise his way to dominance.
Bloomberg doesn’t give a shit about the media, because other than actually being the media, he doesn’t have to care what they think.
schrodingers_cat
@eclare: If he is a Brahmin he is a BJP supporter. BJP has 90% Brahmin support.
And he most likely is.
Jamie
@schrodingers_cat: Well put.
Jinchi
I get that. But the other candidates literally cannot compete with his airtime saturation campaign. Your argument simply reduces the race to money. We’ve already had 3 billionaires consider running just on the Democratic ticket this year. If Bloomberg succeeds, personal wealth will be the standard for political office. That is not a story that ends happily for this country.
Kay (not the front-pager)
I have to go out and I don’t have time to read comments right now as I’d like. I just want to say, Jesus. I’m almost 70. I don’t know if I want to live in this world we’re making (no, I don’t mean I’m suicidal). I admit that in 2016 I let my white privilege blind me to what black people knew: there were more than enough racists in the US to elect Trump. And I understand if at least some black people are willing to make the Sophie’s Choice to vote for Bloomberg. I’m committed to vote blue no matter who in November. But Jesus God.
West of the Rockies
Fair Economist
@?BillinGlendaleCA:
I see both Biden and Warren aggressively going after Trump. Seems I can’t look at Twitter without seeing a Trump bash since I followed Warren.
Served
@schrodingers_cat: Another thing you repeatedly say in threads with no evidence other than your own bias that anything related to Bernie is always the problem. I respect that this is your opinion but I disagree. From your posts as a whole I think your disdain from Bernie is too heavily affecting a lot of your views on the candidates.
We share the hope that he is not the nominee but I don’t think we will agree on much else in this primary.
mrmoshpotato
Oh for the sake of fuck’s.
Only two small white-as-hell states have voted.
Dorothy A. Winsor
Jinchi
This really is starting to sound Trumpist. But the flip side is that he might not give a damn about the rest of us either.
Leto
What specific accomplishments does Bloomberg have with gun control/climate change at the local, stage, and federal level? People keep talking about how he’ll be better, but what specific legislation has his organization passed?
Fair Economist
@cmorenc:
Of course, which is why I have no problem supporting Bloomberg over Trump.
Yutsano
@Dorothy A. Winsor: shockedfry.gif
Kay
@MazeDancer:
I look forward to becoming one of his employees, um, constituents.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Jinchi:
That ship left port with Citizen’s United(Obama even told us that), it’s well out to sea now.
mrmoshpotato
Hang in there Britain. It’ll get worse, and all that potential tax money will stay squirreled away in the Caymans.
Martin
@Jinchi: Look, Bernie and Liz want you to think that they are a threat to Bloomberg. They aren’t. I’m not Bloomberg rich, but I’m more than Bernie/Liz rich.
There are two categories of rich people – those that know how to make money across the system, and one-trick ponies. Trump is a one-trick pony – his old man did real estate, Trump does real estate. Trump doesn’t know how to make money any other way. A threat to real estate is a threat to him. You see this with oil guys, and the Walmart kids, and so on.
Bloomberg is in the other category like guys like Buffet. If the $3T/year healthcare economy dried up overnight, he’d just invest instead in energy or transportation or whatever. He doesn’t care. But underlying these economies is a foundation of trade policy, tax policy, regulatory policy, enforcement policy and so on. So long as that is stable, and predictable, then tweaking the details at worst reduces your returns over here, but increases an opportunity to make money over there. That’s how Bloomberg made his money.
Bernie and Liz, for all of their radical claims – and they’re not insignificant in terms of their impact for regular people – are really just tweaking the details to someone like Bloomberg. I, as a much less rich person than Bloomberg would have no problem sheltering my money against those changes, seeing the likely consequences to my investments and changing them as needed. It would be some extra work for me, but in all likelihood, I could make money off of it because I trust I would work harder than those people that would just leave their 401Ks invested in something that is obviously going to lose value (this is why I believe strongly in defined benefit plans for workers – because if I can make money off of your 401K, then much smarter people than me sure as shit can). But the underlying systems remain intact. Trust in those systems remain intact. That’s what’s key for making money. I can pivot if there’s a major change in the economic landscape (shifting from fossil fuels to renewables) in part because my money isn’t tied up in a refinery. But if there’s a war? That’s bad news. If there’s a corrupt DOJ? That’s bad news. Did Amazon lose a $10B contract because Trump is mad at Bezos – you can’t plan around corruption.
We have systems that have generally understood rules. Preserving that is what matters. None of the Dems are proposing changing that. Only Trump threatens that.
debbie
Less than a month until the Ohio primary and the only yard signs I’m seeing are for Pete and Mike. Didn’t that used to be a candy?
Leto
@Fair Economist: To be fair, only one of those candidates is covered by the media. Understandable why people here at BJ wouldn’t know Warren is consistently going after Trumpov for his corruption. /s (or is it?)
Betty Cracker
Here’s the cross-tabs of the Florida poll I referenced:
Looks like more whites and Hispanics are for Bloomberg than black people, at least in Florida.
debbie
@Dorothy A. Winsor:
Some small positive thing to cling to!
ETA: At least until I saw Betty’s poll. Sigh.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Fair Economist: Great, Sen. Warren can win Twitter. The problem is that there’s more out there than Twitter. I still see more redecorating the kitchen and calling the Fire Department.
Another Scott
@?BillinGlendaleCA: It goes back farther than that, of course. Washington and Franklin and Jefferson and all those dudes were bazillionaires, also too. And Penn before them.
But the point stands – there’s no reason we should be ignoring all the bad things that come along with ex-Mayor Mike’s bazillions.
Two contests have been held. There’s a two-way tie, with the remaining serious candidates still very close. It’s far, far too early for people to be thinking about giving up on their candidates to pick a bazillionaire.
Cheers,
Scott.
debbie
@Humdog:
This party has never lacked for purity ponies. Better the good than the perfect if it will remove Donald Trump from our government.
mrmoshpotato
@debbie: Mike and Ike
tam1MI
All I ask out of my Democratic nominee is that he or she not be Bernie Sanders. I vote after Super Tuesday. If Bloomberg is the only viable not-Bernie option on my ballot, I’m all in, Bloomberg or Bust.
Leto
@Martin:
Just going to reiterate that the military switched from a defined benefit plan to 401k. Can’t wait until the next bust cycle and vets retirements being wiped out.
Martin
Personal wealth already is the standard for political office. Either you have it, or you have a Sheldon Adelson (or Vladimir Putin) as a proxy for it. Citizens United all but guaranteed this.
Chyron HR
@Betty Cracker:
The DNC is rigging the primary for Bloomberg! Even when I thought they were rigging it for Biden and Buttigieg I knew they were really rigging it for Bloomberg!
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Leto:
Really? Folk here at BJ? Come on man(said in Joe Biden’s voice).
guachi
@Betty Cracker: In addition to the Econ poll where Bloomberg’s white/black support is 10/17 there’s the most recent Quinnipiac poll where his support is 15/22 and the prior week’s Econ poll of 7/12.
Finding racial breakdowns in polls is rare but there is also one from North Carolina (which I can’t seem to find again) that has Bloomberg’s support slightly higher among white voters, though that’s an amazing result considering the heavy skew of Biden’s very high black support. It looked similar to the Florida poll but with Bloomberg with lower totals.
Nationally, the polls are 3 for 3 (albeit with one polling firm in there twice) that Bloomberg’s support heavily tilts towards black voters.
Ohio Mom
Debbie: There is an “Any Functioning Adult” yard sign in my predominantly Repub subdivision. To me it’s like the first Robin, a sign of hope.
debbie
@mrmoshpotato:
Bah. I like my name better. ?
Another Scott
Whoops – @Betty Cracker:
It would be interesting to see what the results would have been if they had randomly mixed up the order of the names.
And leaving “undecided” as a choice is a cop-out. If people really are voting “today”, they they are going to make a choice or they’re not going to vote.
(I personally hate the framing of “voting today”. I know I’m not voting today, so I haven’t investigated all the positions, etc., as much as I will before election day. But that’s just me, I guess…)
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
sdhays
@Martin: Did you miss the utter meltdown rich people had over Obama even mildly criticizing them? Modest tax increases on the wealthy have been compared to the Holocaust. Just because such fear is absurd and offensive doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
Maybe you’re right, but it isn’t crazy to think that billionaires like Bloomberg do fear Warren (I don’t think they fear Sanders).
Baud
The reason Bloomberg and to lesser extent Steyer are in a position to buy the nomination is because of Biden’s collapse. The opportunity presented itself.
Kay
@Leto:
People liked pensions so it was vitally important we get rid of them. They were getting a little too soft expecting a minimum level of security when they’re 75.
Incidentally, Bloomberg hopes to raise the age for SSI retirement benefits- but gradually, so as you won’t notice :)
Another fucking ancient gargoyle who thinks young people are the easiest to rob.
debbie
@Ohio Mom:
You’re right! I’ve seen a few bumperstickers with that phrase. Not easy to smile while driving around here, but I like it!
Leto
@?BillinGlendaleCA: the fact you’re ignoring even the reporting here by BC or AL, poster Kay’s repeated discussion of this, about EW going after Trumpov via the corruption angle is a bit disheartening. I mean I guess all the candidates should just run on the “Trumpov sucks” message, to the exclusion of everything else, and just let the chips fall where they may.
if the message of “Trumpov sucks” is the only factor for you, when was your last donation to Tom Steyer because that’s been his schtick for almost three years now? That’s pretty much been his only message. How’s he doing?
Jinchi
Ok I was literally replying to an argument that Bloomberg is going to upend the establishment. I assume we agree that isn’t going to happen?
Marcopolo
@Served:If we wind up in a brokered convention there are a number of things that happen. To whit:
1) Say first ballot no one earned a majority of delegates. Then 2 things happen: 1) superdelegates get to vote in the second round; and, 2) candidates with delegates can start negotiating
2) Second ballot: superdelegates alone could push someone to a majority (hint it won’t be Sanders); superdelegates plus some candidates throw their delegates to another one so they have a majority (hint it won’t be Sanders). If there is still no candidate with a majority we go to a third ballot.
3) Third ballot I think all the delegates can now vote for whomever they want to–they are no longer tied to their original candidate. It is anyone’s guess who would wind up as the nominee (hint it won’t be Sanders).
Basically, in order to be the nominee Sanders will need to win outright or come within kissing distance (~45% or more) because there won’t be any other D “factions” who will support him in a contested convention. He & his campaign really don’t go out of their way to play nice with anyone else and it will show if he needs to round up other support to get a majority of the delegates.
Barbara
@Dorothy A. Winsor: So, like, they didn’t find them to be unconstitutional, they found them to be not supported by the purpose and goals of the Medicaid statute.
It’s a huge victory, but characterizing it as a finding based in constitutional analysis shows ignorance.
joel hanes
@debbie:
I think that some Democrats who might have put up yard signs in better times are afraid of the Trumpists in their communities.
Leto
@Kay: the questions I had for the leadership team that came out from AF headquarters (a few Colonels and top ranked enlisted personnel) to brief us went down like a battery acid margarita.
Baud
@Barbara: Good catch. Nothing to do with the constitution.
Still it’s a good opinion.
debbie
@joel hanes:
Or they’re tuning out altogether. I live in a predominantly liberal neighborhood. Dem signs have always vastly outnumbered GOP signs. I remember when McCain was the nominee, his few supporters put up multiple signs, I guess thinking it would look like more people supported him. In 2016, I never counted more than three Trump signs, compared to nearly 30 Clintons.
Betty Cracker
@Chyron HR: WTF?
@guachi: Maybe it does, but the race seems pretty fluid, no? Just wondering if it’s a tad early to jump to conclusions about whose votes are shifting and why.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Kay: Wasn’t the retirement age increased to 70 already?
Brachiator
@schrodingers_cat:
After seeing a fake billionaire win a presidential election, reporters and pundits are giddy to see a real billionaire try to win a presidential election.
patrick II
@Served:
1. Democrats want to beat Trump.
2. Those Democrats who are supporting more moderate Democrats (including Bloomberg) don’t want any distractions (such as M4A) to lessen the chances of beating Trump.
3. Many people’s highest priorities are some stability and a return to democratic principles rather than a chaotic fascist in the White House. To have that, we must beat Trump.
4. People worry about Bloomberg’s billionaireness, but that cuts both ways. He has resources which gives him a leg up on the other candidates in some voters most important consideration — beat Trump.
It may not sound like it, but I am for Warren. But I know people who are considering Bloomberg, and they have only one thing on their mind — beat Trump. Bloomberg would not be their first choice for any other reason than they think he can beat Trump.
mrmoshpotato
@debbie: Sounds like someone’s going to the candy aisle with masking tape and a marker. :)
tam1MI
The other candidates aren’t even trying! All they are doing is attacking each other (Amy Klobuchar’s hateful obsession with Pete Buttigieg has gotten downright pathological), and arguing over paragraph 34, line 6 of M4A or whatever stupid petty thing a debate moderator throws at them. Biden was doing well in the polls until he got sucked into the petty bullshit maw. Bloomberg is coming across as the only guy who sees what the real danger is while the other candidates are coming across as squabbling toddlers.
glory b
@schrodingers_cat: Yes.
Also, I think most of us didn’t think she wouldn’t enact liberal policies. She never had a frank, come-to-Jesus moment about being a Republican long after the Southern Strategy had been exposed and the racism started to peek through.
I also believed that if Clinton got the s**t she did for being a Republican at 16, we deserved better from Warren.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Leto:
Facts not in evidence. I read every post here at BJ and most of the comments. Sen. Warren’s message is getting muddled with her other plans.
Kay
@Leto:
We have a cartoon on the wall at the law office “grandpa, tell me about ‘pensions'” :)
It’s in our sad, bitter cartoon area, just for the lawyers. The bankruptcy lawyer is basically consumed with populist rage every waking moment. I adore him :)
Betty Cracker
@Baud: True. In that regard, he’s like Trump: exploiting a weakness that already existed.
Martin
@sdhays: Some of them did, sure. Because when your fortune is 100% dependent on selling shitty pizza, 2% is a real threat. That’s what I was referring to above. And you do have the assholes that insist on having ALL of the money. I mean, libertarianism IS a thing, after all.
But I also posit that at least some of these guys were just channeling their inner quiet rage that a black guy had some real power over them for the first time in their lives and took it out on his tax policy.
But the guys that REALLY know how to make money – the Bloombergs and the Buffets endorsed Obama. They’re not the guys that fall apart because they pushed all their chips in on bankrupting people on cancer treatment, and someone is threatening to take their one trick away. Or the payday lenders that lost their shit when the CFPB was proposed because that’s all they knew how to do.
There are a LOT of rich people that are much more invested in having a stable system on which they can make money than worrying about a slight change in marginal rates or adding some reasonable regulation. I’m not even suggesting that most rich people are like this. I am suggesting that Bloomberg is one of those people. I know several billionares and many millionaires that are very liberal. It may be a small club relatively speaking, but they all share a similar view – preserve a fair system, don’t sweat the details. Bernie and Warren threaten details. Trump threatens the system.
J R in WV
@eclare:
Friend of Native American / Indian descent OR perhaps South Asia Indian descent? Could be either from your anecdote…
Baud
A more interesting question is why Bloomberg is doing better than Steyer. They are the two most similarly situated candidates in the race.
schrodingers_cat
@Baud: Its the hideous tie. People are tired of looking at it in the debates.
Kay
@?BillinGlendaleCA:
Reagan. They delayed the cuts to ensure none of them would ever have any personal political accountability.
They’ll do it again. Our 69 year old population are clearly feather-bedding. I think there are carts to corral! If you have time to lean you have time to clean!
sdhays
@Martin: Then Warren is actually better for everybody because her reforms are all about stabilizing the system by rooting out corruption and making it fairer.
Marcopolo
Been saying this like a broken record since the New Year but for goodness sake everyone, vote for the candidate you like the best in the primary. Screw all this strategic crap. You are one vote. Cast a vote you can take some pride/pleasure in. I still say any D running can beat Trump in November (or lose to him depending on events yet to transpire). And honestly, the decision regarding who the nominee winds up being is going to be decided by a lot of voters who are much less informed than you are making a decision either very late in the process or at the last minute. Advertising & propaganda works, alas.
As far as I can tell I am exactly with Kay in terms of Bloomberg (don’t really trust him farther than I could throw him but if he’s the nominee I will vote for him). I don’t know how exactly we will know the exact moment that small d democracy has died in the US but being able to enter a presidential race very late and purchase your way to the nomination has to be a significant milestone.
Finally, in regards to Bloomberg, let me remind everyone what Maya said, “when someone tells you who they are believe them the first time.” Michael Bloomberg has been telling us who he is for about three decades through his record as NYC Mayor, his record as an R (who generously supported fellow Rs even when it was quite apparent that party had been radicalized) and his candid comments on a variety of topics over the years. If you want to swallow what his campaign/PR operation is putting out (for example his bullshit response to his stop/frisk profiling young AA men comments) with no qualms don’t be surprised that if he winds up in the White House he will disappoint you, though yes him being in the White House is better than Trump.
JPL
@Baud: As mayor of NYC he already had some name recognition. I’m still not sure what Steyer did. (Also Bloomberg news).
Hoodie
@Martin: So, the reality is that Bloomberg is less worried about Bernie or Warren winning, and more concerned that they will lose. That makes more sense. I would differ a bit with your characterization that Bloomberg’s motivation is preserving the system because it keeps him wealthy. Rather it keeps him wealthy and free. If all Bloomberg is worried about is preserving his wealth, he’d just back Trump. My guess he’s more worried about becoming Khodorkovsky.
J R in WV
@MazeDancer:
Fix’d that fer ya! Hope you like the remodeling~!!~
Marcopolo
@Baud: 1) Bloomberg has some political accomplishment credit as the former Mayor of NYC that Steyer never had; 2) Bloomberg is outspending Steyer by a shit ton (definitely 2-1 probably more like 3-1); and 3) as I was telling a friend, when you hire basically the entire political campaign/consulting operatives everywhere on a state by state basis, you are also gaining all of their news media/other related professionals relationships. Credit where credit’s due, Bloomberg is running a very comprehensive operation.
eclare
@J R in WV: Indian as in India, not Native American.
Kent
Why is Buttigieg being taken seriously?
Betty Cracker
@Kay: Yeah, but Warren was a Republican in 1996, so really, what’s the difference?
Martin
@Jinchi: Because you’re missing what the system is. The system is order and stability in markets writ large. Individual markets, even large ones like the petroleum industry, is not the system. You seem to think it is, but guys like Bloomberg and Buffet make money where markets change.
So long as market function predictably, change within markets is good. Tear down petroleum and tip up renewables – you can make money there. You can make a LOT of money there. Things like government subsidies for petroleum is good for certain billionaires – those that own refineries – but somewhat bad for others. Buffet has no problem divesting from petroleum and buying wind/solar. Subsidies for petroleum make that not work, though. So it preserves the wealth of some (notably, those that donate to the GOP) and eliminates the potential for others.
Warren in particular is more focused on solving problems that make markets NOT work. She is a capitalist like Bloomberg. She believes in markets. She thinks that too many markets have been captured, that subsidies make them work poorly. On those fights she and Bloomberg are probably in pretty good agreement. I would be willing to bet that Bloomberg believes he could make more money off of Warren’s policy proposals (assuming she got all of them) than he’d lose in her wealth tax. Overall, she is a stabilizing force for markets, which is why I like her, and why I am probably voting for her despite all of my defenses here of Bloomberg.
Bernie is a different story – he doesn’t believe in markets. But so few in Congress share his view that he’d get literally none of that part of his agenda. He’s got maybe 5 votes in both the House and Senate. Other parts of his agenda he has much more support for.
I’m not trying to defend the rich here. But it doesn’t serve Democrats well to completely misunderstand the dynamics. There are a LOT of rich people that support Democrats because Democrats offer stability in the systems that make markets work. Civil rights adds stability because more consumers participating more fully in the economy is good. Immigration is good for the same reason. Some just agree with Democrats and believe that more people should be treated with dignity and respect. Some are genuinely worried about climate change or gun violence or domestic terrorism.
Equally, there are rich people that support Republicans because the GOP will protect their particular industry, but also because they don’t believe in dignity for all, they want to protect their religious privilege, and so on.
You can believe strongly that income inequality is a terrible problem that needs to be addressed and simultaneously make peace with really rich people that agree with you. You don’t need to treat every thing that Warren Buffet or Jeff Bezos does as being suspect simply because they’re wealthy. They can be strong allies if you let them. California is the most liberal state in the country and also the wealthiest. New York City is every bit as liberal and every bit as wealthy. Clearly there is alignment between liberals and a LOT of wealth. Don’t dismiss that. It’s really important to liberals getting what we want.
Marcopolo
@Martin: Bloomberg has put out his tax plan. Under his plan he comes out around $5 billion dollars ahead as opposed to Sanders or Warren’s tax plans. He’s committed to spending $1-2 billion on this Presidential campaign. Do the math.
That’s not to say he doesn’t have other reasons for running. He clearly hates Trump. He is wealthy enough he probably wouldn’t be hurt by 4 more years of Trump, except for the underlying anti-semitism of White Nationalist rhetoric and what happens as that creeps into mainstream life. He probably dislike the destabilizing aspects of a Trump presidency–after all, what good businessman (you know who wants to be able to plan things out) wouldn’t be? But I am pretty sure he is not in it to help out the rest of us for the most part.
Marcopolo
@Betty Cracker: I see what you did there…now if only I knew how to do a snake emoji…
Martin
@sdhays: I agree. I would 1000x rather have Warren in office than Bloomberg. But I don’t think she can win an election that will be 10x more rigged than 2016 was.
Marcus
@Martin: The substance in your writing is fantastic
I know Trump is only a symptom…but he does shed light on some weaknesses of the US political system ..100 US senators for 325 million people vs 1000 Roman senators for 25 million..a bit too much
Trump did something more than rel estate…he sold himself to the GOP while destroying it. A little personal talent was required for that
Marcopolo
I’m off to a coffee shop to write GOTV postcards with Lapassionata for an hour or two. Everyone play nice and if you are the romantic sort I hope you’re having a good day.
glory b
@cmorenc: Unexpected? Heck, I’m surprised she lasted this long.
Aziz, light!
A shrubbery (one that looks nice) versus the incumbent: over broken glass to vote for the former. That sums it up for me.
Barbara
@Kent: This. Bloomberg was the mayor of New York City, whereas Buttigieg . . . Bloomberg is not the first mayor of NYC to throw his hat in the ring for president. John Lindsey and Rudy Giuliani preceded him. And just to be clear, NYC has a higher population than most states, including Arkansas, where Clinton was governor.
Kattails
@Another Scott: she already got my vote :-) & I’m not second-guessing it. I like just about everything she is standing for and believe she’s smart enough to listen, learn, and work out the best solutions, given support in Congress and the Senate. She’s honing her message.
I am far more worried about whether we’ll even get to elections. Hoping for some new anti-Trump bombshell that gets him even more unhinged and chips away at the support edges. Leaked tax returns would be good, if anyone’s listening…
Martin
@Hoodie: Bloomberg has stated plainly that he entered the race because the Dems are fucking up their chances. He has also stated plainly that he will put a billion dollars behind the nominee, regardless of who they are (he can break that promise of course).
I don’t think Bloomberg fears for his freedom – he has warned Democrats that rich people are extremely mobile, and if we push them too hard they’ll leave. I think that’s somewhat overstated, I don’t think many would leave, but I think it does speak to Bloomberg’s own openness to leaving.
But I do think that Bloomberg believes that this market system we have is good for all. At least, the concept behind it is good even if the details need to be changed because people are being harmed by it. I think he believes it’s good for the nation, and good for the people in the nation. And I think he believes that Trump fundamentally threatens it.
I’ll add another thing. In terms of free market realists – people that understand both the benefits of, and limitations of, free markets, the two politicians that best represent them are Elizabeth Warren and Mike Bloomberg – from either party, at any time in the last 40 years. Foundationally, they agree on a LOT of things. They certainly do disagree on a lot of details around the edges, and they certainly do disagree on a lot of things outside of capitalism, but I think in terms of how they anchor policies, Warren and Bloomberg are far more alike than Warren and Sanders are.
That doesn’t mean those disagreements aren’t important – they sure as hell are. Civil rights is not a sideline detail. But in terms of how people get ahead economically, I think they’re very close. And Bloomberg is getting labeled a little bit as a wild-eyed free marketer, which is pretty laughable as he is the guy who is mocked for trying to regulate soda. He’s complicated, and a little weird, and certainly harmful in a number of ways if left to his own, but I think his biggest problem is what he signals from his wealth, rather than the means of his wealth being a problem. He didn’t get rich by fucking people over, he got rich by optimizing the system. That’s not a bad thing. It requires a great deal of balance inside government or else you do fuck people over (government is not business) but plenty of people have also been fucked over by poorly optimized government. I think Liz has that balance almost perfectly. Bloomberg, I have my concerns about, but I also think he’s open to listening (more open than Sanders, at least), and I have faith in Congressional Dems. I don’t think it would be a disaster, let’s put it that way.
Archon
@kindness:
The idea that Bloomberg is running to “save his bank account” is absurd and if that’s the argument Bernie is gonna go with Bloomberg is gonna be the nominee.
Martin
@Marcopolo: In what universe do you believe that Warren could tax all of his wealth? Even if a wealth tax went through, it wouldn’t tax overseas wealth. Guess where he could put his money? You’re really really underestimating how easy it is to shelter money in the US. Hell, I’d be willing to bet he could hide it all in Delaware and not even take it out of country. Delaware’s tax sheltering rules (which, I would add, Biden has worked hard to defend) are not much different from your average carribean island’s.
Further, it’ll almost certainly give credits for charitable giving – and Bloomberg has already committed to giving an additional $20B away (he’s already given away $8B) so his charitable giving will simply offset her 2%, and he’ll pay none of that tax.
Bloomberg only pays Warren’s $5B if he’s the dumbest human being alive, and reverses plans he’s already committed to. His proposed capital gains tax and estate tax gains are MUCH harder for him to avoid. They would almost certainly result in more actual tax collection.
glory b
@Belafon: Rachel Bitecofer, the political scientist who was the only one to correctly predict the outcome of the 2018 election, says the same. She said the next election is an existential crisis, it will hinge on getting the Dem voters of color to buy into the election, and she thinks the best way to do that is for Stacy Abrams to be VPres.
She also said that, for better or worse, the Bloomberg model is the most effective, that all other issues pale in comparison to removing Trump.
Kent
Really we are just talking about winning back the upper midwest (MI, WI, and PA) and obviously turning out the black vote in Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philly would help to do that. I’m not sure if Stacy Abrams is necessarily the key to unlocking that vote though.
Alternatively, winning AZ and FL would achieve the same thing. But someone who can bring out the Hispanic vote might be more help in those states. Although FL does have a large Black population but AZ doesn’t.
Electoral math is hard.
Personally I think someone like a Val Demings, the eloquent impeachment manager from FL might be a good pair with Bloomberg as VP. She comes from a law and order background, but also very humble roots. And she is a total badass who rides a Harley and shoots guns which can’t but help in WI and PA where Harley has its assembly plants.
Or just go all in for the white vote in those states by choosing someone like Klobuchar.
Omnes Omnibus
@schrodingers_cat: How about this, why don’t you say how you think they could have done it?
OGLiberal
Anybody who can beat Trump. I have no stake in the game right now. I personally like Warren best. I think Bernie has good ideas but no plan to get there and there’s a percentage of his followers (not most of them!) who seem toxic. I thought Biden was our best chance but he’s showing for a third time that he is terrible at this running for president thing.
Here’s the reality. There is all kinds of oppo against Bernie (he negates the Russian edge – whether true or not, it’s there) that is being held back for now that Brad Parscale will use – he doesn’t even need that research…just “socialist!” will scare off many stupid voters in this country, especially where it matters. (and there’s a lot more than just “socialist!”) They will use the “socialist” thing against Warren as well – doesn’t matter that it’s not true…neither were “her emails”. Plus, she’s a woman who worked at Harvard and doesn’t like banks….”COMMIE!”
Americans are not going to vote for a guy whose husband stands next to him while taking the oath of office. Forget the “neoliberal” tag – there is another reason Mayor Pete is un-electable…it’s sad but it’s true.
What are we left with? Biden, who can recover after actual not white people vote. That’s why he scares Trump the most but the Hunter stuff, which is BS, hurts him now and will hurt him in the general. Klobuchar, who seems tough and could take on Trump but nobody knows her and, she’s a woman and will be branded as “shrill” by not just the GOP but Chris Cillizza and the rest of the media. And then there’s Hizzoner. People fall for the stupid “successful businessman” s**t but we just did that in 2016 and Bloomberg actually is a successful businessman – his terminals were game changing. I don’t want him but if he can beat Trump – and beat him down in the process – I’ll be behind it. I’m not going to vote for him in my primary (NJ) and he may not even be an option if he doesn’t make the ballot but, whatever it takes to get rid of this autocrat in waiting.
Uncle Cosmo
He’s also in a position to stop either one from attaining such a position & then demonstrating that they can’t do a fucking thing to change it. Because they won’t be able to buck the entire establishment, including the courts, the military, the police, and the MSM.** For which intelligent progressives ought to be grateful (though the naifs, newbies & nitwits here would be spitting fire). Policy failures of the nearly-inevitable magnitude as will follow either one to the Oval Office would only trigger a vicious reaction (TeaParty 2.0 with oak leaf clusterfucks) leading to full-dress fascism under a competent Führer (if not a civil war) by 2025 or so.
———
**Anyone old enough to recall how one James Earl Carter was hammered on a daily basis for his mildly un-Establishment views & innocence of the Bos-Wash hierarchy? You ain’t seen nuthin‘ yet, you old coots!
schrodingers_cat
@Omnes Omnibus: If I knew the answer I wouldn’t be asking the question.
OGLiberal
@Uncle Cosmo: Jimmy Carter’s SOS was Cy Vance and his NSA was Zbig. They were about as establishment as you can get. (with the latter leanings towards neo-con) I know he brought some “outsiders” to DC but he also hired standard issue folks. He was the evangelicals choice and widely viewed as a moderate but was painted into some liberal commie corner that just was not reality. The media was, as you noted, complicit in this. Dude would have won re-election if GHWB hadn’t coordinated with Iran to delay the hostage release.
Another Scott
@Martin:
Repost – NewYorker (from January):
Other smart people have thought about these issues a lot longer than you have. ;-)
We’re not Doomed to having the rich always get their way.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
206inKY
@Martin: I want to nominate you to write for the front page. Your comments in this thread have been very interesting and offer something different to this weird mosaic of a blog. You might be plutocrat-adjacent, but you can certainly wield a pen. If we’re going to be stuck with Mike vs. Donald, I’d love to have someone interpret it for us in a register other than pulling out our collective hair.